Skip to main content

About your Search

WHUT (Howard University Television) 1
( more )
English 67
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 67 (some duplicates have been removed)
the fears of progressives as obama conducts a foreign policy that looks like bush's. i am not pro-drone. i am pro-destroying al qaeda. i am pro-protecting america. i am pro-a better drone program and i am pro ending this war as soon as we can but i fear that's a long way away. as douglas macarthur said, only the dead have seen the end of war, and we may now be in a permanent war. okay. that does it for "the cycle." martin, it's yours. >> passionate patriotism from toure. thank you. it's monday, february 11th, and a pope has abdicated, the president prepares to face the nation, but republicans are still stuck on benghazi. >> the president's state of the union address. could be the president's last best chance to address a captive audience. >> do republicans have the leverage now? >> none of the things i ran on as part of the tea party have been fixed. >> i don't want to live with this sequester. >> how do we get growth with jobs? >> no confirmation without information. >> are you going to support him for defense secretary? >> i will see the rest of the answers to his questions but certainly
, immigration, the environment, everything basically, but his lead on foreign policy is a staggering 14 points. what makes republicans think this is a good thing to have a fight over? >> right. up until recently everybody said, look, politics stops at the water's edge, and that hasn't been the case for the last couple years with this republican party. but it turns out that it wasn't necessarily that both parties followed that axiom because they were being nice about it. it turns out that it's incredibly bad politics to challenge your sitting president overseas. and, you know, this benghazi thing has not worked out for the republican party at all. they tried effectively to make it the biggest issue of the presidential campaign in the last several weeks, and people just didn't buy into it. what they saw is a tragedy. something that was -- if it could have been prevented, it should have been prevented, but they weren't going to start pointing blame and ask for the resignations of hillary clinton and throw barack obama out of office. >> right. >> and the idea that you'd be able to stop future cia
have a foreign policy that is coming apart. >>gregg: you were in the carter administration. all hands on deck the. >> the president himself, for ten, 15, 20 hours a day, in the middle of the greatest moments of this, involved himself personally. we were trying to get them out the day they flew home we were there all night and the next morning up until the time of the inauguration and the president was hands on. the notion this president was disengaged and talked to no one after the 15 minute meeting and went off the next day to a fundraiser? now we understand and this is causing the republicans today to start saying, patrol and -- start saying, graham and others, they will hold up the nomination. >>gregg: does it appear lights were out at the white house while an american diplomat was underattack and other americans? >> that is right. to me, the bottom line question that pat raises and you raised, too, do we have a coherent foreign policy and national security policy not only through iran and north korea but through the role of the united states in rooting out terrorism in north afric
and didn't because he was so, quote, strong on foreign policy. >> you say, quote. that's why i voted for him. i trusted george bush to make hard, tough decisions that i thought john kerry might waver on. >> thank you. which is why i don't think obama will have any problem with this. >> i think it helps him. >> he'll look like a strong, and just like he did a year ago, just like when he killed bin laden, he looks incredibly strong on foreign policy. and this will not provide a weak spot for him in the long run. >> mika, really quickly, i agree with you there. i don't think there's going to be a political fallout from it. >> yeah. >> i think one of the things that disturbs me so much is the fact that americans are not any more concerned about other americans being able to be targeted and killed without any due process. and i'll say it again because i can hear people saying, well, why didn't you say that about george w. bush? i did. i did on padilla. i did when there were americans whose constitutional rights were being eviscerated by what was going on during the bush era. i spoke out t
rice. there's a controversy. we have republicans who are in a weird position on foreign policy and national security precisely because the president has been so aggressive. in a lot of ways there's not a lot of daylight between what republicans do in the same position as democrats. unless we're bipartisan, there is a lot of people in particular, chuck hagel as defense secretary nominee, and there has been some talk by some in the gop leadership that they will filibuster his nomination. john mccain saying he won't. what is your read on all that many. >> i think it will be a very interesting move to filibuster. it will be a drastic move. wron if you guys saw, but carl livin said he will hold a vote on the nomination tomorrow, so they are moving ahead with it. my hunch is that they won't because i think deep down inside republican senators believe that a president does deserve to choose his advisors, and i think it sets a bad press debt because one day there will be a republican in the white house again. maybe not, i guess. the venom from republican senators towards chuck hagel is
.c., foreign policy, the sad truth about benghazi. the cia director john brennan and his support for drone bombings to kill american traitors and we might get into waterboarding as well. first up the automatic sequester spending cuts set to kick in in three weeks. outgoing secretary of defense leon pan et offered these dire warning today before congress. take a listen. >> frankly one of the greatest security risks we are now facing as a nation that, this budget uncertainty could prompt the most significant readiness -- military readiness crisis in more than a decade. >> all right. but there are ways to responsibly trim the pentagon's budget and still protect national security. former defense undersecretary michelle flournoy, if identify got that right -- michelle flournoy, i beg your pardon, she penned an op-ed in the wall street journal this week. joining us is aforementioned michele flournoy. michelle, or undersecretary, which ever you prefer -- >> michelle, please. >> i thought your piece was terrific. sequester or not, defense department is going to lose 10% of its budget and you think
in terms of foreign policy from the bush doctrine, from the bush era policies, but in many ways has followed them and has been handed this entire security apparatus, this particular program began in 2004, about 400 strikes have happened so far. about 3,000 people have been killed, mostly pakistan, somali, yemen. but you have had this sort of deafening silence for the most part from progressives and liberals around this. you have had a few voices certainly on the hill and even on your network to raise questions about it, but by and large, the president has been given something of a pass. i think also the public has moved beyond this in some ways. there's a post-9/11 new normal in terms of how the public looks at the prosecution of this war on terror. they see it, it seems to me, as a vast war, an endless war in some ways that might be best prosecuted in this way rather than those large land wars we saw in afghanistan and iraq of this sort of pinpointed targeting of folks seem so far to have found some positive backing from americans. >> the cover of "time" magazine is rise of the dro
a serious discussion about foreign policy in defense during these nomination hearings. whether it's hagel or brennan or whatever. they're just taking cheap shots all over the place and they're not having a serious discussion. >> what -- >> in other words, if dick cheney wants to get in the ball game and have a really serious -- >> you raise this, i have to answer your question. what is the burr in lindsey graham's saddle? >> well -- >> why is he putting a hold on hagel? >> he's not going to put a hold on hagel. that's just -- he's just grabbing his ankles on the way out the door. hagel is going to be confirmed. it's a done deal. john mccain has blessed it. john mccain said he gave the committee enough -- said hagel gave the committee enough information i'm not going to hold him up on benghazi. i think lindsey graham is there to be the last annoying guy to make sure that hagel keeps whatever promises he made behind the scenes -- >> howard, does this -- >> to carl levin and -- >> the cisco kid may have handed 9 okay but poncho is still fighting the war. thank you, howard and joan. >>> miche
box right? >> such a key component of obama's foreign policy has been we're going to slip in across borders, we're going to do covert actions kill who we need to kill as we view that. it is extremely -- you know, these kind of things, the way these things operate the machinery behind it when you read this memo, i mean this is what you would call, you know, a barnburner scoop. this is actually amazing stuff to see this written down in black and white the way the government does this. >> bill: again i think liberals progressives, would be raising holy hell if george bush and dick cheney -- if this were their policy demanding at least to know what the guidelines are. i think we should be equally strong, i believe in making that demand. even if it's president obama and joe biden. their policy. because this is a big deal. and you know -- >> if you think guys likewide-do that? -- wyden will do that? >> bill: he wrote letters saying we want to see all of the memos on drone policy and we want to see what the guidelines are. what rules you are following. and i think the american people deser
really is in american foreign policy. tonight on special report, one republican senator says the president must be held accountable for his leadership in the aftermath of last fall's benghazi terror attack. on thursday defense secretary leon panetta struggled to explain the president's lack of involvement during the crisis. >>> america could be energy independent in the coming years. advances in technology such as fracking and horizontal drilling have increased natural gas production by 27% in the last four years. there's positive news tonight about the housing industry. we'll hear from the chief economist for government lender freddie mac. >>> the search goes on tonight for a former lapd cop suspected of going on a shooting rampage, killing three people. special report from washington starts at 6:00 eastern righ. right now, back to new york and the five. >> a new study from kansas state finds people who use the internet at work spend most of the time doing things unrelated to their job, a if h phenomenonn as cyber loafing. i say forget the impact on work. how does it affect
, had choice words for the president's foreign policy team. i'm not sure i agree with that. in "the new york times," a great must-read, quietly killing a consumer watchdog. it's how the republicans are just doing everything they can not to have the consumer financial protection bureau that was created by elizabeth warren under president obama actually function because it would keep them, quite frankly, from being able to get their money from all their donors on wall street. and they do not want to lose the people who helped them out. so they want to make sure that the consumer suffers so that they can gain politically. it's a good one. take a look at it. coming up -- >> we're also going to talk about nancy pelosi saying we don't have a spending problem, and the problem with medicare is not medicare. we've got a lot to talk about straight ahead. >> gail collins of "the new york times" joins us straight ahead. >> she's got a great column. >> i love it. you're watching "morning joe" brewed by starbucks. humans. even when we cross our t's and dot our i's, we still run into problems. namely,
the weapons. >> you delivered a major foreign policy today at the heritage foundation. well thought out speech on national security issues. why now? why did you decide to do it? because you knew that it was going to jump-start the speculation you want to establish foreign policy credentials for a possible run in 2016. >> you know, i just joined the foreign relations committee. i wanted to spell out what my mission is for the foreign policy. it's a unique position and one that needs to be expressed. we often have two polar extremes and really just one, for the most part, that we're everywhere you will a of the time. the other extreme is that it would be nowhere any of the time and that would be isolationism. there's a realistic approach somewhere in the middle and it would involve containment. i talked a lot about george kennan who may be the most famous diplomats, thought to be one of the chief architects of containment and i think there's some of ththat may apply to rad islam. it's an thet cal to freedom and has to be opposed at various parts around the world but i don't think the standard ap
him more on every single issue -- the deficit, health care, gun policy, foreign policy, does he have the upper hand? >> i think that the people are looking for results. they're not seeing it now. we have young people graduating from college who -- and the president talks a lot about education. they could find jobs -- i think this is about his tenth time that he's quote pivoting to the economy, and to jobs, but this is like a broken record. he says it, and then goes off to other things. the inaugural address was about climate change, immigration, gun control, gale rights. he ignored the major issue on the minds of the american people, which is jobs and the economy. >> you're not suggesting you think he's going to do that tomorrow? >> i'm hoping he does. i'll have an editorial calling for him to focus on jobs, things he can do to get back to work, but not more borrowing from china and spending. the government doesn't do a very good job of doing that effectively or efficiently. we need people back to work in this country and the president continues to take his eye off that ball and focu
against foreign persons, i think, is troubling from a moral, ethical, and policy point of view. but i don't subscribe to the fact that it's illegal under u.s. law. and that's the law that the president is bound by the constitution to follow. my focus has been primarily, and i'm not saying it's a good program. i'm just saying that i think it's a moral policy question rather than a legal one primarily for the president. i focus primarily on the targeted killing of american citizens, which does bring into play the united states constitution and the rule of law in the united states. and i'm very troubled about that aspect of it. >> can you help us understand how this official program of targeted killing works? >> apparently, the agencies, primarily the pentagon and the c.i.a. nominate people to be on the list. and it goes through what the white house promises is a very rigorous process of review to determine if those people should or should not be on the list. we don't know exactly what the standard is. but it involves a number of criteria, including whether the host country, the country in w
for both the law, for our foreign policy, and for civilians in a killing program that we should be doubly concerned in getting that information out there, so that we make sure that we don't make those mistakes or we correct them when we do. >> let's close with a brief discussion on the issue of surveillance and eavesdropping. on the 31st of december, the president extended this controversial wiretapping act until 2017. the f.i.s.a. act? >> foreign intelligence rveiance act. >> rig. are you both troubled by the seeming lack of oversight for this extension of surveillance and wiretapping of suspected terrorists in this country? do you think there's a real danger here? >> i think there's a tremendous danger. and i think, you know there has been a codification of the expansion of power under george bush. and so any time that congress or through policies that are happening now that we're institutionalizing, codifying, making hard in our infrastructure things at we lirally thkable n or 11 years ago is of tremendous concern to us. it shows our slippage. and we don't always realize that that's wh
and it is the lasting legacy of foreign policy. >> and that leave mes with the question because of so many ideological differences of president obama and president bush, but not on this. it suggests possibilities that presidents are just presidents and they always expand their kind of war powers which is one possibility, and the other is that the president nose something that i don't know about what constitutes threats to the national security, and the third is that well, on this one question, this president is just as hawk ish as george w. bush and any way to adjudicate the possibilities of what war means to the obama administration? >> well, i think that, i think that is absolutely right, it has been a continuation of the bush administration policies, and yes, administrations always try to push the outer bounds of the authority. but one thank is clear is that the laws of war have not changed even if the practice has changed. there are really three reasons that a country can, a state can use force outside of its borders. one, if it is the victim of an armed attack and second if the u.n. security coun
troubled by it, as someone who's served in the white house on foreign policy. what bothered you the most about the way it was put together? >> let's separate it into two sets of issues. one is the criteria for when the united states does say a drone attack and the other is the process by which we make the specific decision. the criteria are simply not sustainable. for example, there's three. the first with is that it has to be imminent, the idea that the terrorists planning an attack are about to launch an attack. we don't know that. so you can't meet the first threshold you set. we don't wait till it's imminent because we never know. and that's clear if you look at all the drone strikes we've done, by the time someone has made the career choice to be a terrorist, we decide that they qualify as a potential target. indeed we go beyond that. so-called signature strikes, you target people who appear to be doing the sorts of things that terrorists tend to do. we set up criteria that we ourselves do not meet. we then say it has to be the capture is infeasible. you don't want to have to captur
in the war on terror and is this legal architecture going to guide american foreign policy in perpetuity because there will always, i guarantee you, thomas, somewhere in the world be someone somewhere who is plotting to do something terrible to the united states, always. that is going to be absolutely the case. and if that is all it takes for us to be in a state of war, we will be in a state of war forever. >> isn't that the new ghormal of what we've evolved to in a country where we have been in a perpetual state of war for a dozen years now? >> yes, but i don't think it should be. i don't think the mere presence of somebody plotting to do something terrible to the united states should be the bar that triggers us being in a state of war. you know, england got hit, spain got hit by terrorist associated with al qaeda. that doesn't mean spain is in a permanent state of war. it doesn't mean england is in a permanent state of war. there are nations that have been targeted by truly genuinely mallef lent forces and it doesn't mean they reorder their thinking, their strategy, their legal archite
to president obama's foreign policy in as far as being able to take out terrorist where is he doesn't have to send u.s. troops and john brennan was an architect of that strategy. of course, controversial because there are innocent civilians who can get caught up in that as "the new york times" written about earlier this week, as well. that's obviously where some of this is coming from but the question americans face is would you rather have american troops and boots on the ground in yemen and pakistan or the unmanned drones taking on this responsibility? >> thank you very much. i appreciate you changing conversations in the middle of everything. we'll have plenty of time i'm sure to talk about chuck hagel. meantime, let's take the audience to the senate hearing and senator dianne feinstein. >> because of the added importance of having steady leadership at an organization that conducts most of its business outside of the public arena. intelligence is critical to the successful draw down in afghanistan, to the brutal war going on within's syria's borders, across north africa where the attack
dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam? were you correct or incorrect? >> my -- >> yes or no. >> my reference to -- >> are you answering the question, senator hagel? the question is were you right or wrong? that's a pretty straightforward question. >> well -- >> i would like to answer whether you were right or wrong and then you are free to elaborate. >> well, i'm not going to give you a yes or no answer -- >> well, let the record show that you refuse to answer that question. now please go ahead. >> welcome back to "hardball." that was senator john mccain grilling his old friend chuck hagel last week at hagel's confirmation hearing. the senate armed services committee was supposed to vote today on hagel's nomination to head the pentagon, but that vote has been postponed after republicans said they hadn't received sufficient information about hagel's financial records and specifically about any payments he's received from foreign sources. that's an odd hurdle given that republicans never seem concerned about foreign revenue sources when it came to nominees from
finney, a columnist with the hill, and michael o'hanlon, senior foreign policy fellows at the brookings institution. welcome to you both. mike, if i can start with you. in addition to the many other responsibilities that you yourself carry, you're also a member of the cia's external advisory board. are you satisfied with john brennan's responses, particularly in relation to the drone program? >> well, you know, martin, i do think we need checks and balances in our system, and i think groping towards the right way to handle a question of whether it be drones or some other kind of use of force, the broader question here is using force in a country where we haven't before or against a person we haven't before, possibly an american citizen when you have got this very broad authorization on the use of force against an enemy that's very generally defined going back to the 2001 legislation. so it's bigger than any one technology that might be used. but, no, i'm not totally comfortable yet, martin. i still wonder if we need some kind of internal executive branch but totally independent check. i
. there were often serious questions about foreign policy betweens the party and the idea of holding up a nomination-- >> schieffer: two of them. >> two of them would be deeply unusual. >> these are very big appointments. these kinds of things happen all the time with smaller nominations and often we don't even find out who the senator is who is holding up the nomination. but this is, obviously, a very public play on the parent of senator grahams and i suspect there will be negotiations behind the scene. >> schieffer: do you think the republicans will back him? john mccain said he does not favor filibuster. i wonder if graham will have the backing. one senator can hold it up. clear me up on senate procedures. have to have 60 votes, wouldn't they, to break that hold? >> i think a hold can sometimes keep away a vote of any number. i think what republicans are torn about here is the fact that on the one hand, they do think they have serious questions to raise about benghazi and that the american people have serious questions. on the other hand, when you get involved in libbia, there are al
't have a foreign policy that is delivered by leak to the american press. it's dangerous. we know it has cost us sources. we know it cost us operations. we know it put in jeopardy, at least a part of the time members of our special forces units that may have been involved in those raids. we had to protect their families. so it is really, really important that they get the notion that yes, foreign policy is hard but you have to sell it in a way that does not disclose classified information. and that's been concerning it me. i hope that they have gotten that message. i think today we'll hear a lot about that when the senate does their questioning of mr. brennan. jenna: congressman, thank you very much for the time today. i know it is a busy one as always for you in capitol hill. we always appreciate you joining us, thank you. >> thanks, jenna. jon: fascinating topics on the front burner today. one lawmaker calls senator marco rubio of florida a lynchpin in getting immigration reform done. we're going to take a look why that may be the case coming up. jenna: now a fox news weather alert for
of the narrative of what the rest of his foreign policy was like. >> sure. there would be hearings in the senate and in the house and it may be not in the house. under boehner but certainly there would be hearings and demands for full disclosure. >> there would be more foreign anger about it. it sort of goes to show, you know, how much president obama sort of changed the idea of, you know, of what he is about allows him perhaps more freedom to do some of these things than bush might have had given sort of how he is -- the beginnings of his foreign policy. >> the whole question of drones in the obama administration, are we letting him get away with stuff that we would never let george bush get away with? the question reed, somebody one to think about. 866-55-press. you know the toll-free number. the president is pursuing this double agenda right now, the sequester still loom can. i want to get to that in just a moment. but right now, he will give a speech on guns and a speech on immigration reform. he is pushing both. how do you assess the chances of bot
the president's foreign policy priorities ought to be, looking at response to the turmoil of the arab spring, dealing with russia wouldn't seem to be anyone's natural first priority right now. jenna: one of the arguments, though, for doing this, according to "the new york times," is it would save a lot of money. if we don't have to keep these nuclear weapons and store them and watch them, that's going to save us a lot of cash, and we know the type of financial situation we're in right now. why isn't that a good argument? >> one, everyone would like to save cash, but really we've had $5 trillion added to our national debt over recent years, and maintenance of our nuclear strategic capability contributed nothing to that. and the proposed cuts, they say, would reduce about $120 billion in spending over 20 years, which is really a drop in the wasn't compared -- bucket compared to approaching $20 trillion in national debt. the second is the cut into intellectual capabilities well that should be stimulating economic development, research and development and applied technology. hitting these areas,
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 67 (some duplicates have been removed)